Can a Sitting President Be Prosecuted?

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday September 26, 2018 · 4:33 PM PDT

2018/09/26 · 16:33

Today, with various legal issues swirling around Pres. Trump and his associates, there has been discussion on what legal action can or cannot be taken against a sitting president. Some argue that a sitting president can only be impeached and tried by the Congress. Some have suggested that is true for crimes committed while president, but not those before taking office. What can we divine from history?

When Pres. Nixon resigned and Vice Pres. Ford became president, Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon for any crimes Nixon may have committed. This action would have been pointless if it was not possible to prosecute Nixon once he was out of office. After Ford was sworn in as president, Nixon was no longer a government official, so he could not be impeached - the pardon could only protect him from the criminal justice system. The pardon Ford gave Nixon was a "blanket pardon," so it might have applied to crimes Nixon committed prior to becoming president. However, the crimes Nixon was really being investigated for were those he did while president. It would seem that Nixon (and therefore former presidents in general) could be prosecuted in court for crimes committed while president.

But can a sitting president be prosecuted by the courts rather than the Congress?

The year before Nixon resigned, his first vice president (VP), Spiro Agnew resigned from office and, on the same day, pleaded no contest to federal charges of income tax evasion. The charge resulted from an investigation by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. In exchange for Agnew's plea, other charges were drompped which involved political corruption from which Agnew received payments both before and during his time as VP. This tells us that a sitting VP can be prosecuted by the criminal justice system (not just the Congress) for crimes, but it may not be clear whether that applies to those committed (1) before, (2) during or (3) both before/during time as VP. Since the corruption started before he was VP but also took place while he was VP, I'm not positive whether this example proves a sitting VP can be prosecuted only for crimes committed before being VP, only for crimes committed while VP, or for crimes committed at any time.

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution says, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

So, the example of Agnew seems to apply, since both president and VP are impeachable. If VP's weren't impeachable, then we might expect different rules for presidents and VP's in terms of prosecution by the criminal justice system.

It seems to me (a non-lawyer), that this tells us that Trump could be prosecuted outside of impeachment while he was in office. The only question seems to be whether the charges would have to be for crimes before he became president, for crimes while president or either. This may not be an obstacle. He may have been involved in collusion or other crimes (business or political) prior to being elected, and he may be guilty of obstruction of justice, influence peddling or other crimes while in office.

Hopefully, some prosecutors on a federal, state or local level will consider whether it is possible for them to apply this approach.

I don’t think there would necessarily be more publicity or time from a president’s workday for a criminal prosecution than for impeachment proceddings. So, I don’t think that should preclude this approach.

What are "real" or "fake" Democrats?

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday April 06, 2018 · 7:49 AM PDT

2018/04/06 · 07:49

A recent Daily Kos email, headlined "Trump's fake Democrats in New York just got a lifeline from ... a Democratic governor," said,

"for as long as he’s been governor, Andrew Cuomo has given his tacit and not-so-tacit backing to the so-called ‘Independent Democratic Conference’—a group of renegade Democrats who for years have colluded with Republicans to keep the GOP in charge of New York’s state Senate in exchange for lavish perks and their own share of power. Now we have reports that Cuomo has brokered a deal to reunite the IDC with the rest of the Democrats, but we’ve heard this fairy tale before, and it’s all a bunch of self-serving garbage.

"There’s one and only one reason why Cuomo and the IDC are saying they’re ready to back down now: They’re worried about their primaries."

So, what is a "fake Democrat," "Trump Democrat," or "renegade Democrat?" And why are these called "Trump Democrats" rather than "Cuomo Democrats?"

It would seem that the answer depends on what is generally a "Democrat." After all, didn't these IDC legislators appear under the Democratic Party column on the ballot? How'd they get there if the party didn't consider them Democrats? Or, suppose for the sake of argument, the New York Democratic Party was tricked into letting these politicians appear as Democrats on the ballot: Once they revealed their true selves in the state legislature, why didn't the state party revoke their standing as Democrats? The answers to such questions tell us what constitutes being a "Democrat."

In the past, some progressive forces have advocated that the national Democratic Party should set political principles. Not just a "platform" adopted by each national conventions which is not binding in any way on anyone, but something which truly defines and rules the party. A common objection to this is that the political climate varies too much from one region of the country to another to have a one-size-fits-all set of principles. However, that doesn't have to mean a state-level set of principles isn't feasible. And, yes, it's true that a set of principles which would be widely supported in NYC would be less popular in more rural parts of the state, so that could be taken into consideration. Still, the New York Democratic Party could establish its own organizational principles which could determine who could appear on a Democratic primary ballot, on the Democratic column on the general election ballot, receive Democratic Party financial help and other resources, etc. It could tell the party (and us) whether the members of the IDC were "Democrats" and whether Gov. Cuomo's support for the IDC affected his status as a "Democrat."

The national and state Democratic Party organizations have chosen not to define what constitutes a "Democrat" - at least not in terms of policy positions and general social beliefs. And the New State Democratic Party has chosen not to view collaboration with a competing party as affecting whether someone is a "Democrat." The Democrats, as an organization, has shown they do not consider the IDC to be "fake Democrats."

So, how does the Democratic Party decide that one politician is a "Democrat" and another is "not a Democrat?" From a political careerist point of view, you might consider a politician as "one of us" if he speaks at campaign events for other members of the party, shared campaign funding with other members of the party, and, perhaps, spent some time doing tasks for the party organization. Even from this narrow perspective, I'm not sure whether the IDC would qualify. So, perhaps, the Democrats have a different standard.

In any case, you may want to ask what you would expect from a party, an elected official and a candidate. If, by Daily Kos' standard or your personal standard, a candidate in the Democratic column on the general election ballot is a "fake Democrat," how should you vote? Even before election day, how should you participate in the campaign? If “fake Democrats” are in positions of power and the party leadership does little or nothing about it, are the party leaders “fake Democrats,” too?

Conservatives Pass Bill Allowing Rich to Cannibalize the Poor [satire]

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday December 06, 2017 · 7:42 AM PST

2017/12/06 · 07:42

Last night, Conservatives in the National Legislature passed the Food Freedom Act. The legislation eliminates legal prosecution for any billionaire who eats human flesh from any individual whose income was in the bottom 10%. The bill is expected to be signed into law in the next week.

Legislature Leader Boughton Paydfore told reporters the bill's purpose was to assist less affluent citizens. "As you very well know, the kinds of foods billionaires eat are very expensive. This bill will help the poor in two ways. First of all, as a luxury food product, a poor person could be worth a lot of money - which could considerably help his family's budget. In addition to that, when billionaires start eating human meat, demand for their other luxury foods will drop. As a result, other luxury foods will become more affordable to non-billionaires." Other members of the Legislature have also pointed out that darker-skinned citizens constitute a disproportionately large part of the poorest 10%, and therefore, that group will benefit the most from selling their family members to become food.

Opposition Leader Mostley Words, criticized the bill. "We should not be talking about which meats to eat. We should all be eating more organically-grown vegetables and fruit. Besides, we need to consider the impact different meats have. Scientists have pointed out that cattle contribute more to climate change than chickens do. But a human contributes at least as much to climate change as does a cow! Eating people is not good for the environment!"

Libertarian Leader Mark Savage opposed the bill. "They call this the Food Freedom Act. Nonsense! True food freedom would not restrict which people could eat the flesh of people from which income bracket. Such restrictions are unconscionable government intervention into our dietary liberties!"

Meanwhile, the legislation was strongly defended by Deputy Premier Dick Penice, who told reporters, "Every Sunday, we eat Jesus' flesh at Communion. And these fake Christians try to tell us that eating the flesh of mere mortals is wrong! They need to go back and read their Bibles!"

At a rally in Dustbowl, Premier Rump told the crowd, “This is incredible! Made right HERE in Great Nation! These are Great Nation citizens — not imports — which will be eaten!”

Debating: Using Their Own Premises Against Them

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 27, 2017 · 1:31 PM PST

2017/11/27 · 13:31

Most of us know from experience that it's not easy to convince others to change their beliefs or policy positions. It's nice to think that humans acquire and change their beliefs in a logical manner based entirely on evidence, but it's not that simple. Humans are driven by emotions, loyalties, (mis)understandings of our world, etc.

Nothing I can suggest here will result in you convincing all others of what you say - even if what you say is truly supported by the evidence. However, there's one factor you need to keep in mind. People with different views tend to begin from different premises. Some of these can be influenced by in-born predispositions. If you try to convince someone by beginning with the premises underlying your beliefs, there's even less chance to convince the other person if she begins with other premises. So, one can improve the chances of influencing others when you use a line of reasoning based on one of his basic beliefs.

If you can show that one of their basic beliefs can actually lead to a policy position different than their current position, they may come to consider changing their position. Let us consider an example involving pollution and (what you and I would call) environmental protection regulation.

Hundreds or thousands of years ago, humans may not have truly understood the connection between the fires we built and used, and the soot and other resulting pollutants. At a certain point in the Industrial Revolution, factory owners started using tall smokestacks. They did this so the smoke, soot and such didn't affect their property so much. Perhaps, way back then they may have honestly thought that whatever left the top of a tall smokestack simply vanished from the world never to be seen again. But now, we certainly know that is not the case. Soot and pollution from tall smokestacks simply land on other properties. Pollutants that are dumped in rivers affect water and crops at other properties. Toxic waste dumped in the ground makes its way into the groundwater, impacting those elsewhere.

Now, suppose I took my trash and threw it up in the air near the wall surrounding the mansion of a factory owner, and the trash fell down inside her yard. She would object that I had no right to do that. She would say it is her property and her property rights protect her from me doing anything there without her permission. As far as business people and conservatives are concerned, property rights are one of the most fundamental rules of society. So, it follows that it violates my property rights when a factory owner builds a smokestack to spew his filth beyond his property line into my property. I should not have to spend time and money cleaning up a rich factory owner's filth from my home because he chose to toss his trash over the wall to my place.

In effect, environmental policy simply says businesses can't violate other people's property rights by throw their trash into other people's properties.

When the government tells coal or other companies that they must put their toxic waste in carefully sealed dumps that will not leak into water supplies [public property] or other people's properties, they are only being required to comply with property rights.

Business owners can't have it both ways. If they don't need to respect other people's owner’s rights to their properties, then there is no reason we need to consider that the business has rights to its properties - and the government can do what it wants to that property to which there are no real rights. On the other hand, if the business does, in fact, have rights to its properties, then other people have rights to their properties - and the business can be penalized for violating those rights.

The same logic applies to such sources of pollution as car emissions. If we accept property rights, then a car owner does not have the right to spew pollutants to the properties she drives past. Since all car owners have the obligation to respect others’ properties, but the average car owner is not in a position to modify a pollutant-spewing car into a car that respects property rights, the solution is to require that car manufacturers make cars which have limited emissions. Having this done at the mass-production stage also makes it less expensive for the car owner to control the emissions (and it more consistently ensures that all cars respect property rights.)

If we try to look at issues in this way, we can find premises (such as property rights) which are basic to businesses and conservatives which actually argue against common business / conservative practices. Some people may find that inconsistencies between conservative premises and conservative policies lead them to question conservative sources on a more general basis.

A Modest Proposal on Symbols of the Confederacy and Nazism

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday August 16, 2017 · 10:53 AM PDT

2017/08/16 · 10:53

In the interests of avoiding extremism or excessive "political correctness," I would like to propose the following policy on symbols of the Confederacy or Nazism being displayed in public places. Local, state and federal governments and politicians may want to use these guidelines.

1) If any nation or group has fought a war against the United States of America,
AND
2) If that war lasted for over two years,
AND
3) If more than 100,000 Americans died in that war,
AND
4) If the US has not since the time of that war declared the US had been the "wrong side" in the war;

THEN
Symbols honoring, commemorating or otherwise sympathizing with that mortal enemy of the United States (or leaders of that mortal enemy) should not be maintained on public property in the United States.

- - - - -

Hmmm. Was that too radical???

One might think simple patriotism would prevent any ambiguity about this issue.

Symbols of the Confederacy refer to people who were willing to kill vast numbers of American citizens in order that these Confederate generals and politicians stop being American citizens. These Confederates were not only dissatisfied with the United States of America - they were willing to fight a long, bloody war to escape from a United States they found so intolerable. When the American people elected Lincoln, these Confederates wanted nothing to do with accepting the results of an election.

It's now 150 years later. How can any town or state want to use public property and/or tax money to maintain symbols honoring these people who rejected elections and committed mass murder against the United States and its citizens? Do these towns and states find the US intolerable and wish they weren't part of the US today? If not, why would they honor those who did?

We can paint a similar picture of Nazis and those who don't condemn them. If the US had never participated in WWII, the argument against Nazis wouldn't be as closely associated with patriotism. But the US did fight in WWII. When someone fails to condemn today's Nazis, we can ask them: Would the world have been better if the Nazis had slaughtered all of the US soldiers attempting to land in France on D-Day? Are they indifferent to which side won WWII? If they believe America was on the right side in WWII and they're glad the US won the war, then why wouldn't they condemn those who go around with swastikas, Nazi salutes, and pictures of Hitler?

Understanding Coal Miners' Concerns

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday June 14, 2017 · 11:53 AM PDT

2017/06/14 · 11:53

I hear a lot of liberals talking about how stupid Trump supporters in "coal country" are. I think it's important to think about this.

Granted: There aren't going to be a lot of coal jobs created. Granted: Coal is dangerous to the climate. Granted: Coal jobs are unhealthy.

Unfortunately human beings (both on the right and the left) aren't purely logical. We're especially illogical when it comes to matters involving people we love. That's why jobs with good pay and benefits that can do more for our families make us do things which may not be in our personal long-term best interest, and may not be in the best interests of other people around the world.

Many years ago, I lived in another city. There, I knew Kevin. He had come from coal country. He and his family knew people with Black Lung. Kevin never worked in coal. For a few years, he'd worked as a union organizer in some other industries. After a while, he wanted to settle down. The union movement found him a job at a Sealy Mattress factory. It was a union job with good pay and benefits. The factory's air was filled with cotton dust - which causes another condition sometimes called "brown lung." Kevin's wife had to nag him for a long time to get him to leave that good job in order to protect his health. This all happened long, long before Trump, and even before significant concern about climate change. It happened back before union jobs became so few and far between. It happened when Kevin shouldn't have had as hard a time finding another good paying job as coal miners will today.

Kevin was not a conservative or a Republican. He wasn't dumb. He was a human whose behavior does not always look wise to others.

Now consider the situation of today's coal miners. They have a job they're familiar with. Mine work is not necessarily useful job experience for other occupations. Democrats talked about job re-training for coal miners. But programs politicians talk about don't always come into being. Since most jobs don't pay as well as union coal mining, most likely, the training would be for lower paying jobs. And there would always be that question whether the offered job re-training would be for occupations for which coal miners would have the necessary inherent potentials. Each person has strengths and weaknesses. Some people from coal country who had strengths in other areas never went into the mines. Therefore, those who went into and stayed in the mines (at least as coal miners’ imagine themselves) are less likely to succeed in the occupations for which re-training would be offered. There is also the question whether the re-training would lead to jobs near where their friends and relatives live, or whether it would require them to scatter to the winds. That’s not only an emotional question, but also an economic one. They’d get little money for their coal country houses and have to pay more for their homes elsewhere. As a result, they're not only reluctant to give up coal for the kinds of reasons Kevin had, but also because they had reasons for doubting the promised alternative.

Coal miners need real alternatives. Guarantee every coal miner an equally-well paying job or an equally-paying pension, and you'd get less resistance. When the government takes away a person's property using eminent domain, it's not supposed to simply give the homeowner a class on finding a new home. The homeowner should be paid a fair price for the property which will allow them to get a similar home. Coal miners have done hard, dangerous work which society has previously told them was necessary for society. If society wants them to leave behind that source of income and benefits, the government should offer them a comparable income and benefits - not just a class which <em>might</em> lead to another job.

Is that too high a price to save the climate?

If you provide any willing coal miner a job with similar compensation, and some insist they still want to be coal miners, then go ahead and make fun of those individuals.

How India Subsidized US Tech - On Fighting Student Debt

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday May 09, 2017 · 4:48 PM PDT

2017/05/09 · 16:48

I received a CREDO email with a petition supporting the College for All Act which would eliminate tuition and fees at public colleges / universities for families making less than $125,000 a year.

It made me think of how "Third World" US policies have been on so many issues. When I worked as a computer programmer, there were a number of programmers whom the company had brought over from India. One of the profound lessons which stayed with me as a result was this: These Indian programmers had received their training at India's public colleges. Now think about that. The people of India - through paying taxes - helped fund the training of skilled professionals whose skills ended up being used in the US for American employers. India subsidized the United States - because the US government doesn't want to invest in the future of its own children.

One of those Indian programmers told me that when he was growing up (in the 1960s or 1970s) there was only one TV set in his entire town. That was the country which could afford to give him enough training that a company halfway around the world would hire him and end up putting him in charge of a team.

Today, in the US, government policies result in America's youth being saddled with huge debts for college education.

As US blue collar jobs are moved overseas or are automated, those losing their jobs are told they should go back to school and learn a white collar profession. But the cost of college can make it a risky gamble. Yet, the US government tends to tell them it's the workers' problem that the boss took their jobs away.

Why can India afford to train both the skilled professionals India needs in India itself AND the skilled professionals who go to other countries, but the US government claims it can't even afford to train enough Americans to fill skilled professional jobs here? That is how "Third World" US policies are.

Call it TrumpDon'tCare

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday April 27, 2017 · 2:02 PM PDT

2017/04/27 · 14:02

Conservatives have been tricky in the use of words and names. For instance, there’s a bill in Congress called “Working Families Flexibility Act” which actually is a way to attack overtime pay. I’d like to suggest a new name for the GOP healthcare plan — TrumpDon’tCare.

There’s a narrative we can tell people:

Children will lose healthcare — TrumpDon’tCare

Working people will have to choose between medical expenses and housing — TrumpDon’tCare.

Do you have healthcare or don’t you have healthcare? — TrumpDon’tCare

Don’t call it Trumpcare - there’s no caring and little healthcare. But TrumpDon’tCare

Some Modest Proposals for Trump and Others

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday March 31, 2017 · 8:28 AM PDT

2017/03/31 · 08:28

Today’s Modest Proposals for political improvement are:

After the unanimous Supreme Court ruling overturning Gorsuck's ruling against education of children with disabilities, Gorsuck has to admit he thinks that the "Bah! Humbug!" version of Scrooge was a bleeding heart liberal.
When Donald Trump is making his outrageous statements, he must be monitored by a lie detector. This is NOT to prove he's lying. It's to prove he is so delusional that he actually believes those bizarre claims - and, therefore, must be removed from the presidency for psychiatric reasons.
Jeff Sessions should be required to take a remedial social studies class which includes a test asking, "Is the Russian Ambassador an official of the Russian government?" When he flunks the test, he will be removed from his post.
Once a day, the FBI and CIA will intercept the White House's cable TV signals and in its place send their daily presidential intelligence briefing to Trump's TV, so he has a news source other than Fox.
Obama must admit he had Trump's NYC home wiretapped prior to the election. He should further admit that the surveillance included Trump's internet service, and as a result, Obama has a copy of the pee tape (which was emailed to Trump to prove that Putin really had the tape.) Finally, Obama must admit that the pee tape shows the disappointing size of Trump's penis.
Donald Trump is not allowed to take credit for the fact that 200 years ago, Washington Dc literally WAS a swamp and WAS drained.
Since Donald Trump has refused to sell his company in order to reduce conflicts of interest, there is only one option. We have to spread the word, "Trump is such a lousy businessman, he wasn't able to sell his loser company."
Now that the Baltimore mayor who campaigned for a higher minimum wage has vetoed a bill to raise the minimum wage, the position of Baltimore mayor will be paid at exactly minimum wage.
When Donald Trump is put on trial for treason (acting on behalf of Russia), and five jurors say he's guilty and seven say he's innocent, the Electoral College will make the final decision that he is guilty.

Donald Trump's Speech on His New Budget

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 19, 2017 · 1:34 PM PDT

2017/03/19 · 13:34

[For those of you who can’t wait to hear Trump give a speech on this budget — here’s a transcript via my crystal ball]

I need to talk to you about the latest fake news. It's awful. It's a lie. The media is saying my new budget increases military spending, but cuts all those loser programs for education, housing, the environment, Planned Parenthood and all those other wastes of money.

It's all a liberal conspiracy. None of it is true.

Ok, so what is really happening? Simple. Just as I promised, I've solved all of your problems all at once as soon as I became president. The media is the enemy of the people - they're just too stupid to understand all your problems are gone. Gone. Poof! Gone.

It's common sense. We need more money for the military for our war with Mexico. Mexico refused to pay for the Wall. My Wall. MY WALL!!! Now we'll be sending our army into Mexico. Needless to say, Mexico will have to put its men into its army. Mexico will be catching and drafting anyone who tries to cross the border. Voila! We don't even need a Wall anymore! Brilliant! I'm brilliant!

Since all of our men will be in the army fighting in Mexico and the Middle East, there will be no unemployment. All you women who have been complaining companies won't hire you for the jobs you want - now they have to hire you because all the men are over there! And since all the men are away in the army, you won't need Planned Parenthood. Brilliant, if I do say so myself!

And - this is one of the best parts - no more US companies sending jobs overseas. They'll all be making military equipment, and for national security all that will be done right here. Am I brilliant or what?

Healthcare. You're gonna love this. All those men in the army are going to have medics to keep them healthy and they're not even going to have to pay insurance for that!

Education. Let's face it. How much education do you need to be a private in the army or work in a defense plant making guns and tanks?

It's amazing. All the problems are solved - with one simple budget. MY budget! And don't forget. None of those other losers fixed this all for you. I did. I was going to say you didn't have to thank me, but - you know - you really, really should.

Oh, you know, I almost forgot. All you people who've been talking about the minimum wage? I have fantastic news for you. From now on, your wages are all going to be the very, very minimum.

Thank me, thank me, thank me!

Senate Democrats "split over how aggressively to oppose Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee."

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 14, 2017 · 2:24 PM PDT

2017/03/14 · 14:24

An email from Daily Kos just said:

Politico reports Senate Democrats are "split over how aggressively to oppose Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee."

What exactly has to hit the Democrats over the head to knock some sense into them?

► The president making the nomination may be acting on behalf of Russia

► His Supreme Court nominee was uninformative when questioned by Schumer

► Others of his nominees have lied about talking with Russians, have conflicts, etc.

► Trump lost the popular and would have done worse if not for voter suppression

► Congress is disproportionately Republican as a result of voter suppression & gerrymandering

► Republicans blocked large numbers of Obama’s nominees, including for SCOTUS

► Republicans had altered some Senate rules to force through some votes

► Trump is making baseless accusations, attacking the press, etc.

► Trump refuses to separate from his conflicts of interest or release his taxes

► Trump & GOP are presenting a healthcare plan that breaks many of their promises

Does Trump have to kill someone in Time Square as he suggested during the campaign???

Time’s up, Democrats. Are you with us or against us?

Resistance to Trump & Attacks on Majority Rule Needs Us to Reach Out to Blue Collar Families

workingwords

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 12, 2017 · 12:27 PM PDT

2017/03/12 · 12:27

I recently posted an article here putting forward the idea that voter suppression, gerrymandering, big money in politics, the Electoral College, etc. have been used to create a crisis in majority rule in the US. I suggested that Trump's ability to get support from a significant section of economically insecure blue collar workers could be a decisive factor in how this situation develops from this point. I talked about how we should try to reach out to these people to join forces on matters of common interest - issues like healthcare, overtime pay eligibility, minimum wage, Social Security, labor rights, etc. These are the family budget issues that it's hard for them to fully embrace the business / conservative agenda - even if they are white males.

To win the resistance fight we need to involve the greatest number of people possible. We can't afford to turn our noses up at people because they were fooled into putting hopes on Trump. So, we need to find which blue collar workers are inclined to push for these kinds of issues and make them part of that movement.

A comment to my earlier article pointed to the fact that most Trump voters were more affluent - which is true. However, the higher income Trump supporters are generally the usual GOP voters. It's the economically insecure blue collar people - which Trump made various campaign promises to - which are significant in a couple of ways. There are people in this group which aren't consistently Republican or conservative. And unlike the higher income white collar Republicans, they're further from the strata which gets some benefits from the business / GOP legislation. They can play an important role when the billionaires’ agenda makes working people even more economically insecure.

But it's not just that as working people who lack status they have more potential to join in struggles for the 99%.

I've started reading Chris Mooney's book The Republican Brain. This book discusses how the human brain tends to use certain kinds of biased reasoning to justify one's beliefs in politics and other emotional areas. The book explains about areas in which there are differences in how people on the political right or left bias their reasoning. It also discusses other factors that seem relevant to my earlier article. Educational level also seems to affect the use of biased reasoning, but not in the way you might guess. Studies show that people with higher education are actually less inclined to change their views when faced with new evidence. This appears to be because these people have a more sophisticated system of explanations / rationalizations in their heads that make it harder for new evidence to be integrated. People whose beliefs are more intuitions rather than elaborate systems may not change their views at the first contact with new evidence, but changing their views is not as difficult.

Considering this understanding, it makes sense that in terms of psychological ability to change beliefs, blue collar people — who generally have less higher education — would generally be better possibilities for changing views. They're in the line of fire of the business / Republican offensive, and more of them will have less mental barriers to learning from the evidence they encounter about who is trying to make them poorer and who is trying to protect their family budgets.

We need to try to involve them. Not by lecturing them about what a dumb mistake they may have made, but by asking them to participate in efforts to protect their family's health, their family's living standard, their children's needs and their parents' retirement. Try to make the groups working on these issues an environment that doesn't feel hostile to anyone working for that one particular goal. That doesn't mean you should never have a civil political chat over a beer or coming home from a rally. It just means maintaining an attitude "we agree to disagree on other issues, but we all are working together on this issue."

Working together on common issues doesn't just mean getting more people involved. It means that some misguided blue collar workers get to act side by side with us and see that we don't have demon's horns growing out of our foreheads. Once they get to know us as individuals, it will be easier for them to openly listen to what we think, and start to consider what we say.

Newer
Older

RSS